41–50 of 142 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> will result in mankind accumulating more and more genetic defects Why? Unless the Down Syndrome patients themselves have children, then there wouldn't be an evolutionary impact.
Genetic disorders don't always express themselves, but can run in the family
I think there is a certain tension between on the one hand being against children being aborted for downs syndrome, but being OK with children with no detected abnormalities being aborted for lifestyle/career reasons.
There are many many examples of choices that it's OK to make unless it's for a bad reason - that's exactly what a protected class is about.
> Yet a gulf seems to separate the publicly expressed attitudes and private decisions. I would be more surprised if this were not true. It's not very PC to say, but quite simply being different is not inherently a moral good. Downs Syndrome in particular is more controversial, because people who have this disorder typically are happy in their lives. I've spent a not insignificant part of my life working with teenager…
Special attention must be given to evaluating the morality of prenatal diagnostic techniques which enable the early detection of possible anomalies in the unborn child. In view of the complexity of these techniques, an accurate and systematic moral judgment is necessary. When they do not involve disproportionate risks for the child and the mother, and are meant to make possible early therapy or even to favour a seren…
It's a valid perspective, so I think the downvotes aren't in order. However I strongly disagree. Having Down syndrome isn't just being "outside the conventional parameters of of normality", it's a serious disease with life-altering implications. You will never surpass the cognitive capacity of a young child, you will have impaired vision and hearing, if you ever manage to speak at all, you will probably lose that abi…
Prenatal testing is one of the few solutions to this "post-darwinian" world (not in the usual sense of the word) with its modern medicine that will result in mankind accumulating more and more genetic defects. Though slightly more ethical from my point of view would be gene-editing to remove those defects, instead of just terminating the fetus. Edit: Also I'm not talking about down syndrome specifically. There's a lo…
Hmm, so the testing isn't high sensitivity? It appears that the initial couple had the foetus tested and then did not abort but found that they had a child with Down Syndrome in the end. Interesting.
My daughter was tested (non invasively) as at high risk of downs (the doctor said 50/50) we decided we didn't care... lo and behold: she doesn't have downs. I don't know enough about the area to make judgements, but I am definitely concerned that it's not a slamdunk that the doctors are getting this right.
There is a huge agenda of control around pregnancy in the UK - our consultant was so arsey about us not doing the follow-up that I had to get him changed out (it later turned out that he was struck off 2 years later for more or less murdering a woman and child, but that's another story).
Special attention must be given to evaluating the morality of prenatal diagnostic techniques which enable the early detection of possible anomalies in the unborn child. In view of the complexity of these techniques, an accurate and systematic moral judgment is necessary. When they do not involve disproportionate risks for the child and the mother, and are meant to make possible early therapy or even to favour a seren…
It's a valid perspective, so I think the downvotes aren't in order. However I strongly disagree. Having Down syndrome isn't just being "outside the conventional parameters of of normality", it's a serious disease with life-altering implications. You will never surpass the cognitive capacity of a young child, you will have impaired vision and hearing, if you ever manage to speak at all, you will probably lose that abi…
I have a daughter with Down's, so I probably know more about it that most.
> You will never surpass the cognitive capacity of a young child
This is just completely untrue.
> you will have impaired vision and hearing
There is certainly a higher incidence of vision and hearing problems in people with Down's, but it's far from guaranteed. Further more, glasses and hearing aids are a thing.
> if you ever manage to speak at all
I'm struggling to take you seriously now - this is utterly absurd.
> You will have a myriad other chronic and painful health problems
There is a higher incidence of some physical and mental illnesses in people with Down's, but again, it's far from guaranteed, and again need not have a large impact. For example, a lot of those born with Down's have a small hole in their heart, but nowadays it's fairly easily rectified. Not sure what "painful" health problems you could be referring to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> will result in mankind accumulating more and more genetic defects Why? Unless the Down Syndrome patients themselves have children, then there wouldn't be an evolutionary impact.
Why wouldn’t the Down Syndrome patients themselves have children?
Homosapiens are a result of chromosomal fusion, so I would approach the claim of "accruing defects" with great skepticism. Nature is still selecting as evidence by inflicting a high miscarriage & infertility rate.
https://www.ndss.org/resources/sexuality/
https://www.merckmanuals.com/home/children-s-health-issues/c...
Having a child is terrifying enough. Some folks might be up for the challenge of supporting a child with special needs for their entire life (or a good chunk of it), but I'm not afraid to say that it was a huge relief to know that my son had no known genetic abnormalities before he was born. There's nothing to be ashamed of here.
I've seen several families destroyed by the challenges involved in raising children with special needs, or rare diseases.
Having a nuero/genetically-typical child is a challenging full time job. Add in the prospect of it being a full triple-time job for their entire life, whether that's six years or 130 years and it's not likely to be remotely possible for the vast majority of families to sustain. Between the mandatory extra time commitments, lost pay, increased expenses, and the conversation changes. How could it not?